Sheriff must respect all our constitutional rights

Published: Thursday, January 24, 2013 at 08:00 AM.

4. The Fifth Amendment prevents government at all levels from depriving someone of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Why then does the sheriff allow his officers and other local police agencies to place a person under the Baker Act (hold for psychiatric evaluation)? During a Baker Act hold, the citizen, who has committed no crime nor even been suspected of such, is forced to submit to invasive medical tests, held against his will in a medical hospital or psychiatric facility where psychotropic drugs are frequently forced on him, have his personal property including clothing, cell phones, and money temporarily taken from him, and then released far away, sometimes 50 or more miles, from his home without any way of returning — all without being allowed to stand before a judge? Is that due process?

In Bay County, police stop citizens at random to conduct warrantless, suspicionless searches, force citizens to take psychotropic drugs, and arrest citizens for simply carrying firearms. Unless Sheriff McKeithen stops these illegal activities, his great words of respect for the Constitution mean little.

Recently, Bay County Sheriff Frank McKeithen posted a notice on his Facebook page in response to the recent shootings and subsequent national discussion of gun ownership. Sheriff McKeithen stated that he supports the constitutional rights to keep and bear firearms just as he took an oath to support and defend the entire Constitution. Bravo.

But if that is true, then let me pose a few questions for Sheriff McKeithen:

1. Courts have ruled that the First Amendment generally protects the recording of video and audio in public places or where there is no expectation of privacy regardless of state wiretapping laws, which were designed to protect private phone conversations. But police in Florida have arrested peaceful citizens merely for videotaping them. Will the sheriff arrest me for audio and video recording police and other government officials in the performance of their duties, such as during traffic stops or public meetings?

If I were to videotape a police officer detaining a citizen, I hope that the officer is not the one who stopped John G. Henke in the beginning of January (“Suspicious police overstep constitutional bounds,” letter, Jan 16). The officer detained Mr. Henke for simply looking at a business for sale in Lynn Haven, demanded identification and personal information, had backup arrive and gave Mr. Henke a hard time. The officer even admitted that Mr. Henke hadn’t broken any laws. Imagine what she would do to me with a video camera, a copy of the U.S. Constitution and an attitude against bullies with badges and guns.

2. The Second Amendment doesn’t mention concealment versus open carry. It just says “shall not be infringed.” In Florida, with a few exceptions such as being a police officer or licensed prison guard, a citizen may not legally carry a weapon in public for all to see (open carry) unless he is hunting, fishing, shooting or traveling to do so. Will the sheriff still arrest me for open carry given his position on the Second Amendment? If a federal agency were to suddenly confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens, would the sheriff use force to stop them?

3. The Fourth Amendment demands a warrant prior to the detainment of anyone not actively committing an observable crime or reasonably suspected of such. Thus, the police don’t need a warrant to pull you over for speeding because they tracked you on radar, but must get a warrant if they only suspect you of growing marijuana in your basement.

Will the sheriff conduct warrantless, suspicionless, mandatory sobriety checkpoints where there is no prior evidence of intoxication or even suspicion of such? Does announcing such checkpoints in advance suddenly relieve the sheriff of the constraints of the Fourth Amendment? Will he allow other police agencies in Bay County to do so?

4. The Fifth Amendment prevents government at all levels from depriving someone of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Why then does the sheriff allow his officers and other local police agencies to place a person under the Baker Act (hold for psychiatric evaluation)? During a Baker Act hold, the citizen, who has committed no crime nor even been suspected of such, is forced to submit to invasive medical tests, held against his will in a medical hospital or psychiatric facility where psychotropic drugs are frequently forced on him, have his personal property including clothing, cell phones, and money temporarily taken from him, and then released far away, sometimes 50 or more miles, from his home without any way of returning — all without being allowed to stand before a judge? Is that due process?

In Bay County, police stop citizens at random to conduct warrantless, suspicionless searches, force citizens to take psychotropic drugs, and arrest citizens for simply carrying firearms. Unless Sheriff McKeithen stops these illegal activities, his great words of respect for the Constitution mean little.